Re: [Usability] Some usability feedback

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:52:41 +0100, Maurizio Colucci
<seguso forever tin it> wrote:
> Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> 
> >For showing the results, hiding the non-matching items sounds like a
> >bad idea. If I type 'abd' when I really mean 'abc', it would hide the
> >real target. But the worst thing is that it looks like the items are
> >disappearing, possibly without any indication why this is happening or
> >a obvious way to cancel the process.
> >
> >
> I must say I am not that convinced. Suppose the quick-search box is
> always visible, and that it _blinks_ very apparently when not empty.

<sarcasm>
Or perhaps it could stick needles in the users eyes as a reminder
</sarcasm>

> Then it seems to me that both problems you raised are solved: 1. the
> user could fail to notice he typed `abd' instead of `abc', and 2. he
> would never be puzzled why some files have disappeared, because he is
> constantly reminded the files are being narrowed.

For point 1, the items would still be hidden and the user would have
to correct it before the right item is visible again. For point 2,
sure. If the user is aware that they come back when he/she clears the
search box.
 
> >Instead, the view could be altered so that the items having exact
> >match could be at 100% opacity, items having partial match at 66% and
> >the rest at 33%.
> >
> But, most of the time a search matches very few items. Most items would
> be greyed out, and it would be difficult to locate the important ones.

With "exact match" I mean "has the searched string somewhere in the
name", not "is the searched string". So anything with the exact typed
string in it would still be at 100% opacity.

> The user would need to scroll a lot, or you would have to supply "goto
> next" button, which would complicate things. And for what?

If you missed the sentence below, the items would be arranged so that
the exact matches are on the top and partial below them (and the rest
of course below those).

> >Also, since we are categorizing the items, they
> >should be also ordered by relevance. This would have the following
> >benefits:
> >
> >- visual feedback of the matches
> >- no files are lost from the view
> >- sequental matches would show up
> >- typing errors have less effect on the results
> >
> >
> I'm afraid I don't follow you here :)

Hope I was able to clear that up?
 
> (I also don't get why you think that who needs a recursive search, and
> is using spatial mode, should not be able to have the search folder
> entered automatically in gnome-search-tool.)

I don't think I have ever made such a statement. In fact, I think that
something like ctrl-f should definitely do that.

-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi